This is Exactly What's Wrong With America!!

Activist Judges!! California's Shame!!

Published on September 15, 2005 By Moderateman In US Domestic

.. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules in favor of atheist Michael Newdow.

This is a perfect example of what Plagues the United States, One man on a personal mission to destroy God and one Judge with no sense ruling in favor of this complete waste of human flesh.

There is something inherently wrong when a small percentage of people What I like to label the Godless ones can ram there views down the throat of the vast majority of Americans that DO believe in GOD>!!!

Just another reason to hate living in such a LIBERAL state filled with liberal activist judges legislating law from the bench!!!

How can ONE judge assume that the MAJORITY of people would even begin to agree with this heinous decision is beyond me.

The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!!

Comments (Page 4)

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

36 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 15, 2005

There's 300 million Americans. So 24% of Americans, roughly 72 MILLION people don't fit the definition of American set forth by the McCarthyist pledge.

and that's fine I do not make anyone recite the pledge neither does anyone else, but they are making me not recite what I want to>!@!

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

37 by ParaTed2k
Thursday, September 15, 2005

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

BINGO! exactly.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

I already said, if they had have merely struck down the 1954 Federal Law concerning the Pledge of Allegience in schools

The courts are not allowed to direct Congress to pass laws--what they can do is rule whether or not something is unconstitutional.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#39 by chiprj
Thursday, September 15, 2005

Now, see, I disagree there.

disagreement is good, but you can believe it or not the godless nazis will be listening for any infractions of the ruling.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

The point is, Federal Judges shouldn't have crap to say about how schools are run. Public schools are local government entities. NOT FEDERAL

Fine--as long as you want your schools to run without federal money (and I mean all federal money, including all education grants).

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2005

Courts rule on cases they are given, Para. Do you think they have the right to crawl over US law like some search engine and arbitrarily pick federal legislation to overturn?. You can bet you'd not like it if they did.

No, but they can look at a case and say "we have no jurisdiction over the specifics of this case". They should have done that the first time this went up the judicial ladder. The Supreme Court deciding that Newdow had no right speaking on behalf of a daughter he has no custody of was a direct reprimand to the 9th Circuit for being too stupid to notice that little detail themselves.

Shadesofgrey:

The courts are not allowed to direct Congress to pass laws--what they can do is rule whether or not something is unconstitutional.

Right, so why don't they rule that the law is unconstitutional, instead of letting the unconstitutional law stand and making more unconstitutional decisions around it?

But that would be too simple for the scum.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!

So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?

We are talking about schools here. That is important to remember. We are talking about impressionable young minds.

Where are all the parents who get up in arms about the "gay agenda" and "tolerance" being forced down their kids throats? What? It only works one way? You get to deride what educators say when you don't agree, but it is fine when it clearly violates the 1st amendment because it doesn't bother you?

From the 2002 ruling:

"To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."

Why, when I swear my allegiance to my country, to I have to evoke God?

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

Right, so why don't they rule that the law is unconstitutional, instead of letting the unconstitutional law stand and making more unconstitutional decisions around it?

Now you've got me confused. The case that Newdow has filed challenges "the constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. § 4, which codifies the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the practices of four California public school districts requiring students to recite the Pledge." (that is a quote from the ruling filed by Judge Karlton).

So he's doing exactly what you want him to do--trying to get the codified (ie law version) of the Pledge to be deemed unconstitutional.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

#54 by shadesofgrey
Thursday, September 15, 2005

no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!

So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?

as long as it is not mandatory to recite it, how does that infringe on parental rights? cannot a parent simply tell the child DO NOT SAY UNDER GOD. although to press that crap on a child should be considered child abuse, put your kid on the spot, sure force them to be Godless!

Lee1776

on Sep 15, 2005

I'm merely pointing out that the monkeys in the 9th Circuit could have merely struck down a federal law, which would leave the question where it belongs (at the local level).

Federal money is spent in local schools, which make local schools libel to federal laws. That is why I personally believe vouchers should not go to Religious schools. If a local school board wishes to force "under God" into the pledge, then they no longer should receive federal funds. That is their choice.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!

Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.

Some people believe that this liberal judge is upholding the Constitution; he is striking down a law ("addition of under God") that that is in direct violation of the Constitution about the Government instating a religion. If you want your majority of have "under God" added again, please do it the right way by adding an amendment. The vote is still in the hands of the people, the people just need to do it the right way. This peebrain judge was doing his job. Not to do so would IMO make him an activist.

PS: You guys did know that the Judge in this case is a practicing Catholic?

the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD.

So that would make Atheist that same percentage as the largest single organized religion in the US. (Catholics are 24.6%) For all the complaining I here about how vast a minority Atheist are, I think one out of four people is not that much of a minority.

Baker, I agree with you 100%. This shows how a person does not have to be a liberal to believe religion should not be in federally funded schools and the Constitution should be upheld against not only Liberal activist, but also Conservative activist too. It may have taken 50 years for the law to be labeled unconstitutional, but I for one am glad.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

practicing Catholic

obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.

MM--I have a problem with that. I am also a Catholic and I support his decision. I don't need to practice my faith in public to have faith, and I don't need the government to help me shove my beliefs on other people--that's not the christian way. I don't think that he needs to "practice more"--I think he's doing just find upholding his religious beliefs and his duty to the constitution at the same time.

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2005

59 by shadesofgrey
Thursday, September 15, 2005

obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.

MM--I have a problem with that. I am also a Catholic and I support his decision

sorry if I offended you shades was not my intention.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 15, 2005

sorry if I offended you shades was not my intention

Not offended. Just not in agreement.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!